Windows RT Browser Restrictions Draw Antitrust Attention

An anonymous reader writes "Last week we heard complaints from Mozilla that Windows RT would restrict users' choice in web browsers, unfairly favoring Internet Explorer over alternatives like Firefox and Chrome. Unfortunately for Microsoft, the situation is now on the Senate Judiciary Committee's radar, and they will look into claims that Microsoft is engaging in anti-competitive behavior. That said, it could be a difficult case to make, since Windows RT is destined for ARM-based tablets, and Apple currently dominates that market. 'When it comes to proving abuse of monopoly power, an important question is determining the market in which a monopolist has power — the relevant market, in antitrust legal terms. In the [late '90s] DOJ case, U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's findings of fact concluded Microsoft had a monopoly in the market for "Intel-compatible PC operating systems." Windows on ARM doesn't run on x86 chips, so by Jackson's standards, Windows RT hasn't been judged to be part of Microsoft's monopoly.' Microsoft addressed some of these issues in a blog post in February."

Comments

Where's the one on Apple?

[recoiledsnake]

"There' is no tablet market. There is only an iPad market" say the fans and Apple gets away with not only bundling Safari but banning all other browser engines. Yet Microsoft with it's 0.1% share of tablets in the "Post-PC world" gets flogged for this.

Re:Where's the one on Apple?

[mystikkman]

"There' is no tablet market. There is only an iPad market" say the fans and Apple gets away with not only bundling Safari but banning all other browser engines. Yet Microsoft with it's 0.1% share of tablets in the "Post-PC world" gets flogged for this.

Dude, haven't you gotten the memo?

"It's OK for Apple to block Firefox, but wrong when Microsoft does it".
http://tinyurl.com/d2m8qs3
(Sorry for tinyurl, it's legit I promise, Slashdot filters the link because it's too long).

Not to mention Apple's worse actions like forcing their in-app payments and their 30% cut of even in-app purchases(driving many apps, esp. ebook related ones out of the market) and even forcing developers not to charge Android users less for the same services from the money they save from not paying the 30% tithe to Apple.

Re:Where's the one on Apple?

[recoiledsnake]

All the browsers available in the App Store are just wrappers and skins on the Safari browser engine, except Opera Mini, which runs the browser engine in the cloud to escape Apple's banning of running Javascript(or any other JIT code).

That's why there is no Firefox or Chrome(or even IE ;) for iOS.

Re:Where's the one on Apple?

[shutdown -p now]

Only Opera Mini is in the App Store, and that's because most of layout and some of rendering happens server-side for it, which means that it's not a full-fledged standalone browser. Opera Mobile (which is a full-featured browser) is not available, and neither is Firefox.

Re:Where's the one on Apple?

[shutdown -p now]

I don't know whether you're a) using sloppy terminology and are just flat-wrong, because there are other browsers available for the iPad b) you're using accurate terminology and being misleading, because hell no Apple does not allow you to replace the system-level browser engine, but that's not at all what Microsoft is doing.

All "other browsers" available on iOS are wrappers around WebKit. You can't use your own engine there.

Re:Where's the one on Apple?

[Moses48]

The first time I heard about people being upset that winRT only supported IE as its default browser I thought that Microsoft must of thought of this (think anti-trust with IE in europe).

The only reason to do this is either they think they can change it once it becomes a dominant player, or they want to force the issue so Apple must change. I can't think of any benefit to M$ for making Apple open up it's browser integration in iOS. But someone let me know if there is a benefit?

My guess is they thought through it and came to the conclusion that recoiledsnake mentioned.

Re:Where's the one on Apple?

[Sarten-X]

The point of antitrust laws is not to block monopolies. The point is to block anticompetitive behavior (which often, but not always, follows monopolies). Microsoft has a long history of aggressively anticompetitive tactics, where Apple has comparatively little.

Apple has also publicly stated the reason for the ban on other engines (coherent UI bahavior), which is perfectly in line with (and necessary for) their business model of producing devices that look and feel the same. Microsoft, on the other hand, has provided no reason (to my knowledge), and does not have any history of using such restrictions to actually improve the end product.

Re:Where's the one on Apple?

[recoiledsnake]

How many copies of webkit do you want on your phone/pad. ;-)

Count the number of gekko/webkit links and bundles you find on a well-augmented Ubuntu or Fedora box.

So, you solution is to ban all those browsers on the Linux box, I presume?

Ff Webkit is all important, why is Chrome way more popular than Safari on Windows? They use the same Webkit engine, don't they? A browser is much much more than it's engine.

"I" may or may not want something, but that doesn't mean browser makers must be banned from providing alternate rendering and JS engines.

Re:Where's the one on Apple?

[ifrag]

why is Chrome way more popular than Safari on Windows?

Thanks to Mozilla, we know the answer to this. It's because Chrome has a higher version number.

Re:Where's the one on Apple?

[mario_grgic]

Actually, you are completely wrong. Also, no one is asking for permission to "replace" Safari engine, just to install another one and give user a choice. All browsers for iOS devices on the App Store use WebKit (Safari) engine and they just provide different UI around it. But if something doesn't render (work) in Safari, it won't work in any other browser. The only exception is Opera Mini which renders content on the server and then sends the rendered content to the browser on iOS device. In this regard Apple is way worse than Microsoft ever was. Now Microsoft is playing catchup in evil practices that Apple got away with so easily.

Re:Where's the one on Apple?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, I don't follow your logic. Lets say I buy a car. But the dealership decides to put a lock on my engine hood, so I can't open it. Then a few thousand miles later, I go to put oil in my car. But I can't, because its locked. So I take it to the dealer and say, hey, unlock my car so I can put oil in it. And they say, sorry sir, only we are allowed to put the oil in, and it will cost X amount. And we are the only ones that can do it. We won't unlock it for you, or any other mechanic shop.

That's not anti-competitive in your mind. I mean, sure, Apple may not have a written policy stating they want to be anticompetitive. But I suspect you'd be hard pressed to find many people (non-fanboys) that don't agree that Apple benefits by forcing their hand/control over everything that happens in their ecosystem. Thats entirely how they have success. They control everything, which allows it to run and work incredibly well. They don't have to worry about the mechanic down the street screwing up your car, and then you coming to them to complain about the car not functioning. Because you'll never get to that point.

Re:Where's the one on Apple?

[Reapman]

ok. if other browsers are allowed then please recompile (or ask someone else to) Mozilla Firefox for iOS and submit to Apple for submission. What do you anticipate happening?

Either browsers are allowed and Mozilla can launch Firefox for iOS, or browsers are not allowed and they can't. Letting me skin a browser isn't an alternative web browser. That would be like saying IE6 didn't rule the interwebs back in the day because you could install 3rd party varients of it!

And the answer "I don't want Firefox" isn't a valid answer. We're not talking what you want to do, we're talking what you CAN do. Installing a non Safari based browser is not allowed (note Opera is the Mini version and gets around it by offloading the rendering to the cloud)

Sorry but I'm really tired of this "BUT THEY DO ALLOW IT!" comments I keep seeing on here. Show me Mozilla Firefox or Chrome or IE or something that doesn't need Safari on the phone AND does it's rendering on the phone and I'll believe it. Until then.. wrong. Apple will deny the app.

Re:Where's the one on Apple?

[CanHasDIY]

How many copies of webkit do you want on your phone/pad. ;-)

Strawman - as the consumer who purchased and supposedly owns the device, that should be for me to decide, not Apple.

Re:Where's the one on Apple?

[lister king of smeg]

yet again, opera cheated. it is rendered on their server and sent to your device as a binary not as plain html. thus skirting the rules

Re:Where's the one on Apple?

[UnknowingFool]

First part of the definition of monopoly power is market share large enough to control the market. Within monopoly power, the consumer must not have suitable alternatives and the barrier to entry must be sufficiently high to preclude competition. This is not the tablet situation. You can get all sorts of different tablets today including Windows ones. The fact is that Apple has dominated the market despite other tablets being offered. Second, it's no illegal per se to have a monopoly. It's illegal to abuse monopoly position. Your memory is short, so may I remind you how MS used underhanded tactics to threaten competitors and partners alike to maintain their Windows monopoly.

Re:Where's the one on Apple?

[amicusNYCL]

I guess that depends how you define "browser". If the definition includes the engine, and you're not permitted to choose which engine your browser uses, then that lack of choice may be a legal problem.

Re:Where's the one on Apple?

[bhcompy]

Then you don't need any of those things because no one makes plugins for Opera

Re:Where's the one on Apple?

[tepples]

You mean if I don't like IE10 on my WinRT tablet I can't just go buy an iPad bundled with Safari?

Likewise, if I didn't like IE on my Windows 98 box, I could have just bought a Mac or a UNIX workstation. The U.S. government didn't see it that way.

Re:Where's the one on Apple?

[thetoadwarrior]

Because Apple makes shit software for Windows like Microsoft makes shit software for OS X.

Re:Where's the one on Apple?

[Reapman]

particular browser? show me a browser that doesn't require Safari, and does rendering on device (you know, a real browser, unlike Opera Mini). Link to the Apple store please.

Show me one. Even one would be enough. I originally wrote a car analogy, but perhaps the words from an actual developer at Mozilla might help:

"I am a developer on the mobile Firefox team at Mozilla.

We currently have an iPhone App called Firefox Home, which lets you sync your Firefox tabs, history and bookmarks to your iOS device. You can get it from the app store, or read more here: http://www.mozilla.com/mobile/home/

We have no plans to release the full Firefox browser for Apple iOS devices. The current iOS SDK agreement forbids apps like Firefox that include their own compilers and interpreters:

“3.3.2 An Application may not download or install executable code. Interpreted code may only be used in an Application if all scripts, code and interpreters are packaged in the Application and not downloaded. The only exception to the foregoing is scripts and code downloaded and run by Apple’s built-in WebKit framework.”

Other browsers for iOS use the built-in WebKit libraries (like Skyfire) or do not execute any JavaScript on the device itself (like Opera Mini, which uses a proxy server). But unless Apple removes these restrictions, full browsers like Firefox are not allowed on iOS."
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/will-firefox-mobile-ever-be-released-for-ios-devices-no-blame-apple/10770

this is back in 2010, did something change? If so, show me the updated information.

Re:Where's the one on Apple?

[Sarten-X]

The devil's in the details... If your car was sold to you under a big banner that says "every part is certified by $BRAND to be right for the car" and the $BRAND reputation is built on parts all working together perfectly, that's not anti-competitive. That's just plain old lock-in. Still bad in my opinion, but not illegal, and certainly not running afoul of antitrust laws. Anyone buying a $BRAND-brand car likely knows that they're locked down, and is paying a premium for that near-perfect operation. The lock is a part of the car's quality-control design.

On the other hand, if your car's reputation is based on being a generic vehicle and the brand has been built on support for aftermarket parts, a sudden addition of a locked hood, while requiring the expensive oil and limited service locations, would be seen as anti-competitive.

Law is not a computer program. It's based on human judges interpreting guidelines to maintain a society. They can look at history and reputation in their decisions, to judge the likelyhood of an entity, corporate or individual, breaking the spirit of the law. Apple's just not that likely to screw over other mobile device makers like Microsoft is.

Re:Where's the one on Apple?

[Dahamma]

That's because Apple has spent a lot more money on political campaign contributions than Microsoft.

Citation? Brief search so far has indicated that's completely false.

Re:Where's the one on Apple?

[nschubach]

Who cares if Ford is the only one making the engines for your vehicles as long as the badge on the front of your car says Corvette! Obviously, you can't go after Ford for monopolistic practices since you're driving a shell that says it was made by Chevy. I mean, can't you see how this works? You do have a choice... a choice of badges.

Re:Where's the one on Apple?

[jimshatt]

But what if I *want* a crappy, unsecure, resource needy browser. I'd like that to be my choice to make. If IE really is better on WinRT then let the market speak. I know, I know, they're afraid WinRT will get bad rap because the batteries will be drained in 10 minutes, but then they should just focus their marketing on that. Put out advertisements with battery life comparisons between WinRT with FF and WinRT with IE.

At least give other browsers (and IMO all software) the chance to be crappy and ruin my device if I so choose.

It's the same as on the PC really. Even though I hear from many that FF sucks their memory and CPU, that isn't the case with me and I choose to run it. I'll pick another browser when the time comes, but at least *I* pick.

Re:Where's the one on Apple?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, do you even read what you link to?

A new Google-funded study of browser security by security research firm Accuvant Labs crowned Chrome the champion of security features, and ranked Firefox below Internet Explorer in terms of protection available from web-borne threats.

How is it even relevant, when ARM version of IE won't have plugins, so no (how carefully you copypasted those!) sandboxing or plug-in security.

By your logic, MS should have insisted on Chrome, then.

PS: You gotta get paid, I know, I know, but - please! - do you really have to sound so much like a sales pitch? Tell your higher-ups that not having to follow an obvious script, but rather having a degree of freedom in your postings adds to your value as a marketing asset. Just add something about leveraging synergies for better monetization of social media resource and you won't have to sound like a broken record.

Re:Where's the one on Apple?

[Reapman]

Your definition and mine of what a browser is are COMPLETELY different obviously. Sorry but if I write a front end and use some existing "library" as the rendering engine (AKA, the hard work / key part that makes the browser a browser and not a video game or a spreadsheet), and call myself a browser developer, that's kinda sad IMO. UI Developer? Sure! Absolutely. Browser? Nope.

Even if I say your right about your definition (which I don't think is correct), Apple is still restricting and locking out other parties from using their own browser technology. You have to use THEIRS.

So I guess your admiting that Apple restricts browsers, since you have to qualify your statement with "(and use built-in WebKit libraries)." Your iOS Rage not withstanding.

Re:Where's the one on Apple?

[MrHanky]

Untrue. You can't bundle your own version of webkit, and you have to use iOS's own javascript interpreter as well.

Re:Where's the one on Apple?

[shutdown -p now]

It's more than just being required to use WebKit. It's being required to use a particular version of WebKit, with no ability to extend or change it in any way.

I want Firefox to keep using its own engine, thank you very much. Last thing we need for the Web is to see "best viewed in WebKit" monoculture, and it's already starting to to trend that way. Didn't a decade of IE dominance teach people anything?

Re:Where's the one on Apple?

[shutdown -p now]

Apple's stance is the same reason we don't want non-Microsoft browsers ruining the security of our Windows RT tablets and draining battery.

That's pure bullshit. If a browser can "ruin the security" and "drain the battery", then so can any other third-party app.

Re:Where's the one on Apple?

[shutdown -p now]

"Cheated", really? Do you seriously think they've made it work that way just because they were so desperate to get into the App Store?

Opera Mini has worked that way since it first appeared on J2ME feature phones. It's the main feature of the damn thing - that it offloads heavy processing to the server, thereby allowing it to run on low-powered devices and not strain the battery.

Also, there's no "skirting the rules" with Apple, since they are the final arbiter of what goes in, and can ban your app for any reason - including no reason at all. It's not like there's some kind of due process there where you can prove your innocence and be guaranteed to walk away.

Re:Where's the one on Apple?

[shutdown -p now]

FWIW, even with all the restrictions, WinRT is still less restrictive than iOS - you still can write a custom browser without using IE engine, and you can even register that browser as the default app to open URLs. The problem there is that it won't have access to all the APIs that IE does, and in particular it can't JIT-compile JS to native code, so it will always be slower. But e.g. Opera Mobile should run on WinRT just fine.

Re:Where's the one on Apple?

[Grishnakh]

Don't be ridiculous; there's certainly a "tablet market". Of course, it's utterly dominated by Apple's iPad, but there are other vendors selling tables, such as the Kindle Fire. The alternatives may be selling in much, much lower quantities than the iPad, but they are out there; I think I even saw some Samsung tablet in CostCo recently.

You're right of course about Apple getting away with things that MS can't, but that's what MS gets for being a convicted monopolist; everything they do now is subject to extra scrutiny, even if it's in a different market where they don't (yet) have a monopoly. They have a terrible history of using their monopoly power to muscle into other markets and bully competitors, so the extra scrutiny is fully justified. The only thing that isn't fair is that Apple hasn't yet been subject to this same scrutiny, because they certainly deserve it as well.

Re:Where's the one on Apple?

[Grishnakh]

Go away, shill. The conviction was never overturned, they just changed the sentence.

Re:Where's the one on Apple?

[dougisfunny]

Firefox will balloon in memory for me, but despite that I still prefer it to the other browsers due to a number of add-ons.

Re:Where's the one on Apple?

[scot4875]

I didn't buy Apple. I don't want to be limited to their sandbox. I might have bought Apple if it weren't for their draconian control measures over the hardware and software. (Though there are now enough other reasons to avoid them that it's unlikely they'll be on my consideration list any time in the foreseeable future.)

Do I still have to just shut up and accept it? I think they're bad for the industry. I think they're taking software development to a place that I don't want it to go. I think that the idea of being forced to pay a yearly subscription to a hardware manufacturer and going through some arbitrary review process shouldn't be the *only* sanctioned way of running code on a device.

--Jeremy

Re:Where's the one on Apple?

[mounthood]

Microsoft is forcing Apples hand. Simple as that. Apple has had their time dominating the market and getting paid, and now Microsoft wants a 'level playing field' so they can make their market.

Re:Where's the one on Apple?

[CanHasDIY]

The target audience isn't necessarily a tech savvy one. The more the user is allowed to do, the higher the potential for mishaps. When you promise a customer a fancy piece of shiny hardware and advertise it like a high-tech toaster - "press here, then magic happens" they aren't expecting a full blown PC with all the associated quirks, tweaks, gradual cluttering/slowing down/ buggyness, etc. They are expecting a magic little plastic box that does all the things that were printed on the outside of the big cardboard box it arrived in.

That's part of the problem, if you ask me: by patronizing this attitude of "I don't want to know how it works, so long as it does," society in effect creates a disincentive to learn what is going on 'behind-the-scenes,' and thus subconsciously trains people to never question the how or why, just accept your fate (and license agreement) without question like a good little drone.

I fear for future generations if this trend continues - the world is pretty fucked up right now, largely due to general indifference on the part of the populace-at-large, and the less attention we pay to the actions of the powerful few (governments and corporations), the more fucked up it will become.

... by locking things down, it lets the manufacturer ensure the device works the way they want it to until they make it obsolete.

... which forces the consumer to play by the device maker's rules, which doesn't really mesh with the whole 'free-market capitalism' idea.

On the other hand, if a person is willing to plunk down hundreds or thousands of dollars to essentially 'rent' a piece of hardware, then give the same company even more money to 'rent' the software that the hardware runs, that's their prerogative.

I personally find that pretty durn stupid, trusting a for-profit corporation, but what can I say, I failed Normalcy 101. Miserably.

If I want a device that works the way I want it to, I stay away from Apple, tablets and smart phones, and get a real computer.

Really, that's pretty much what's kept me out of the tablet market... well, that and having difficulty coming up with a scenario in which a tablet would be more useful than either my smartphone or laptop, but I digress. I run CM7 on my Droid X, and aside from issues with recording video, I think it's the cat's ass! When I become eligible for an upgrade next month, I fully intend to keep my DX and turn it into a portable network analyzer/pen testing device (Here's hoping for Backtrack: Android Edition).

That's assuming I actually do upgrade; there seems to be a trend among hardware manufacturers to lock their devices down even more than before, going so far as to seal the power system so you can't even do a battery-pull, which is a serious turn off for me as a consumer.

Like the Makers say, 'If you can't open it, you don't own it," and I for one won't tolerate not owning the expensive devices I paid for.

Re:Where's the one on Apple?

[mystikkman]

Going along with that analogy, MS can claim that Windows RT is a new brand and that Windows 8 is the old generic brand.

>Apple's just not that likely to screw over other mobile device makers like Microsoft is.

HAHAHAHAHAHA what? We are talking about browser makers here, not mobile device makers. They already got screwed by Apple.

Re:Where's the one on Apple?

[Sarten-X]

Intent is a major part of any legal issue. Do they intend to cut others out of the market, or do they intend to prevent others from mucking around with the user experience? If both, in what proportions? Did they take any actions to hurt competitors (like buying and closing) over promoting themselves?

Prior history goes a long way toward establishing a case for intent.

Re:Where's the one on Apple?

[Dahamma]

Now if MS made the platforms that run it's various operating systems, they could mandate what software ran on it. IE only, no problem W8? You got it!

That makes no sense and really has no legal basis whatsoever. It's like arguing that AT&T runs their own phone network, and should be allowed to mandate the phones plugged into it. Oops, that was already an anti-trust issue that went *against* them.

As long as Microsoft is no longer using anti-competitive practices to force their OS on someone's hardware (which they aren't, for quite a while now) then it has nothing to do with Microsoft. It's completely up to the hardware manufacturer.

You don't "buy Windows" on a Windows RT based tablet any more than you "buy iOS" or "buy Android" on those tablets. You get the software that the manufacturer created/licensed, ported, and installed, and trying to say a Windows RT or Android tablet is any different from an iOS tablet in this regard is absurd.

Re:Where's the one on Apple?

[Just Some Guy]

Still bad in my opinion, but not illegal

Warren Magnuson and John Moss would like a word with you:

Warrantors cannot require that only branded parts be used with the product in order to retain the warranty. This is commonly referred to as the "tie-in sales" provisions, and is frequently mentioned in the context of third-party computer parts, such as memory and hard drives.

So yes, your hypothetical scenario is specifically illegal. That law is why you can buy Fram air filters (instead of AC Delco), Pennzoil 10W-30 (instead of Ford Lubr-o-matic), and Shell gas (instead of Huile d'Fiat) without voiding your car's warranty.

On the other hand, if your car's reputation is based on being a generic vehicle and the brand has been built on support for aftermarket parts, a sudden addition of a locked hood, while requiring the expensive oil and limited service locations, would be seen as anti-competitive.

And illegal. There are times when car analogies are appropriate and reasonable. This isn't one of them.

Re:Where's the one on Apple?

[Bacon Bits]

Secondly Apple doesn't have a monopoly to abuse.

Most estimates I've seen put Apple in as 60-70% of the tablet market share. They alone control the hardware channel, the OS channel, and the third party application store for their product. You can't buy an iPad without iOS, you can't buy iOS without an iPad, and you can't install an application without Apple allowing it on their store.

Who's not a monopoly now?

Re:Where's the one on Apple?

[R3d M3rcury]

IDC suggests it's 68%.

Re:Where's the one on Apple?

[exomondo]

Whether it's a new brand or not doesn't matter, their previous anti-trust investigation was centered around Intel-compatible x86 computers whereas Windows RT is for ARM in which they do not have a monopoly position. If you counted Windows RT and Windows 8 together then you would have to count the x86 computer market and the ARM device market as one and ARM device market is so big that Microsoft would still not have a monopoly.

Re:Where's the one on Apple?

[mcgrew]

Sorry for tinyurl, it's legit I promise, Slashdot filters the link because it's too long

No it doesn't. The only time you might need a shortened URL here is in your sig. When I'm moderating, I almost always mark a post with a shortened URL as "troll" without even looking, because it's a way to sneak goatse past. I only followed your short link because your comment had been modded +5. The link I posted is the full link to where your shortened one goes.

Hope I helped.

iPad

[Anonymous Coward]

So why isn't Apple under the same type of scrutiny?

Re:iPad

[camperdave]

Because Apple doesn't sell operating systems for generic computers. Apple only makes OSs for Apple products. If Microsoft only made OSs for Microsoft computers, they wouldn't get this kind of scrutiny either.

Apple doesn't matter

[MBCook]

I don't think the fact Apple doesn't allow this kind of thing matters. Apple has a very clear differentiation of products. The desktops/laptops run a different OS from the iPads. I'm going to ignore the "Apple shouldn't be able to do this" argument, which I don't really disagree with. The fact is that's status quo.

With Windows 8, all tablets get the same interface and run the same software. The difference is that, based on something esoteric to the population at large (the architecture of the CPU), you lose the ability to load some kinds of software. Not because that software wasn't ported, but because it can't be ported without being severely crippled. What this means is that when someone buys a tablet from BestBuy, they may or may not be able to run the software they expect. Some Windows 8 software runs on everything, some Windows 8 software doesn't. What's the lesson? That FireFox thing doesn't always work. Just use the built in stuff or you'll have problems.

If MS was clearly positioning the ARM tablets as something different from the non-ARM tablets, that would be different. They may call it "Windows RT", but when two tablets are in the store next to each other, looking identical, running identical interfaces, I think it's fair to say they're the same. Duck typing for tablets. Since I'd expect ARM tablets to really take off due to cost and efficiency, this certainly seems like a round about way to force people to use IE.

Re:Apple doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope.

Win RT only allows for Metro apps (aside from Office and IE). It's NOT the same as x86 Windows.

The power of x86 tablets is that they will run REAL Windows and can all Metro AND classic apps. Win RT is a subset of Windows.

Re:Apple doesn't matter

[marcosdumay]

So, the Grand Unification of Windows that MS is promissing for ages will create... 2 versions of Windows? One for desktops, another one for portables?

Re:Apple doesn't matter

[MBCook]

Right, but MS is clearly pushing Metro style apps as the "correct" future direction. If you don't use the older desktop style apps, you could easily have the same experience with both Windows 8 and Windows RT.

What do most users spend their time on their computers doing? Web browsing, email, IM, and maybe iTunes/WMP for music, games. All those will be available in Metro.

I think for the average user, it will be quite easy to stay in Metro all the time, leading to the possible confusion.

Monopoly chain

[Todd Knarr]

The chain's going to go more like this:

1. Your business network runs on Windows. MS has a monopoly here.
2. If you want a phone/tablet that integrates with your business network, you need to have one that runs Windows RT. Others won't be given access to what they need to integrate smoothly.
3. And if you want a browser on your Windows RT phone/tablet, it must be Internet Explorer. Others won't be allowed.

Whether Microsoft has a monopoly in ARM-based tablets or not is irrelevant. It has a monopoly in the desktop and business-network market, and it's using that monopoly to gain advantages in the ARM-based phone/tablet OS and browser markets.

Re:Monopoly chain

[larry bagina]

Concering point 2, With Windows 8, Microsoft is adding VDI licensing which boils down to: tablet access requires a CDL license (which costs extra). Unless you're using Windows R/T, of course.

Apple...

[ericloewe]

Please remind me what Apple's stance on browsers for their iDevices is.

Right...

What's Apple's share again? At least 90%, you say?

Right...

What's Microsoft's share? 0% in ARM tablets?

Right...

But Apple hasn't done this before! What? They kept certain OS functions reserved for Safari?

And Microsoft gets flak for disallowing other browsers in desktop mode? How often is an ARM tablet user going to use desktop IE? Other browsers are still allowed on the store, so it's not a case of locking other browsers out.

Re:Apple...

[UnknowingFool]

So if you want a tablet, your only choice is Apple right? Unlike when you want an OS for your Dell computer, you can pick anything you want. That's the first difference. The fact that Apple has 90% despite competition. Second remember how MS threatened Intel not to make a Java VM for Intel, Apple totally did that with ARM and Android. Wait, no that didn't happen. Besides any investigation will be in how MS will use this in furtherance of Windows not ARM.

Here's what puzzles me...

[Erbo]

It's obvious that Windows RT is going to be extremely different from Windows as we know it, in terms of UI, operating paradigm, openness to outside software (you have to go through Microsoft's app store and give them their cut, plus these new tablets will be locked down to only running WinRT), and so forth.

So why is Microsoft still calling it "Windows"?

Apple doesn't call its OS for iPad/iPhone/etc. "OSX" anything, even though that's what it's derived from. It calls it "iOS."

So can't Microsoft pick another name for this thing, just to eliminate confusion? Like, say, call it "Metro OS," after the visual style it uses?

Re:Just do nothing

[Barbara, not Barbie]

MS created opportunity, and they never dumped product at zero retail.

So how much did you pay for your copy of IE?

Browsers weren't always a free add-in.

Same for cd and dvd burning software, same for video playback software, same for anti-virus software, until MASV (Microsoft Antivirus for DOS 6.0) - the one that (arguably correctly) identified the upgrade program for Win95 as a virus.

Microsoft is quite happy to dump product at zero retail to kill the competition.

This may be a good thing

[Targon]

I am not being anti-Microsoft here, but more to the point, if Microsoft is investigated for this issue, then Microsoft will easily also point the finger at Apple already doing this. Once that happens, both Microsoft AND Apple will get yelled at for it, but since Windows 8 is not released yet, Microsoft can get away with only a warning, while Apple may get a huge fine.

Wrong market definition.

[Alex Belits]

The market where Microsoft has monopoly is not just "desktop operating systems" but also "operating systems for general-purpose interactive computer devices". Even counting existing tablets as "general-purpose", what is a stretch for things like iPad, Microsoft is still a monopoly due to overwhelming numbers of PCs. Windows 8 for ARM is firmly in that category. It's marketed as the same Windows, just for smaller devices (just like Windows CE was, except then it was a lie, and now it mostly is not).

Re:Monopoly on browser engines

[scot4875]

so I don't see how this is a matter of competition.

Ahh, so you're just ignorant then.

--Jeremy